Where did you get this theory from? lol
Search result on Ayatollah Taleghani
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv1-&p=ayatollah+taleghani
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ayatollah+taleghani
Where did you get this theory from? lol
The top three targets in the confirmed range of the Shahab Iranian missles, in my opinion, are probably Baghdad, Tel Aviv, or a major U.S. troop concentration. The Shahab 4 (the Iranians won't call it a '4', but it's a big step up from the '3') would put most of Europe in the crosshairs. But it will probably be a couple of years before the '4' is ready. The Iranians say that it's only for putting satellites in space. Yes, you could, and you could also put a nuke on it and put it on a ballistic trajectory. The Europeans would then wish they had a missle defense system.
Like Colin Powell said last year, you don't have a missle-based weapon without a payload.
Of course, they could also hand off a nuke to their favorite terror group, and try to smuggle it into the U.S. Very difficult to do, but I don't have a lot of faith in American border security.
Let's just concentrate on the capabilities of the Shahab-3. The Iranians want nukes to establish, they think, a security fence around their country, so that they can support terrorists as much as they want with no threat of military action. Also, they'll want nukes so that they can use them.
Now, if you are going to use a nuke, what target would be the most damaging to the "good guys" ? Nuking Baghdad would end coalition operations in Iraq as we know them today. We talk about last week's elections in Iraq as perhaps the first domino to fall in the Middle East. The election never happened if Baghdad gets nuked. Iin the aftermath, I guess the remaining coalition forces would attempt to try to get a handle on the utterly chaotic situation. It would take years to do so, if we decide to stick it out. I think we would, but it's hard to tell. I'm sure the American Left would be screaming its head off to get Bush to leave Iraq.
In the event of a Baghdad nuking, Tehran is vaporized very shortly thereafter. I mean, there is no way that doesn't happen. Any nuking of any target is absolutely suicidal, in my opinion.
I think at that point we would be wishing that it was merely World War II all over again.
I think Tel Aviv is the prime Israeli target. Tel Aviv is considered by the world except Israeli to be the Jewish capital. Jerusalem never gets bombed for multiple reasons.
I'd love to hear someone argue that nuking some other target within the range of the Shahab-3 missle, other than Baghdad, would cause more damage.
Now, there is another thing. What if Iran sets off a nuclear bomb at a test site within its own borders? It demonstrates that Iran is a nuclear power. Iran would soon begin blackmailing the world with its new power. Would the US or Israel immediately take aggressive action? I would hope so, but I'm not optimistic. At least on the American side. I would sort of anticipate an Israeli attack. Surely you can't sit back and wait for regime change while Iran keeps building more nuclear bombs.
I've never seen anywhere, even once, someone suggesting that Iran may target Baghdad. But if I'm the mullahs, and I want to maximum destruction, that's probably what my target would be.